engleski

Your article needs revision? – How to improve it successfully and answer to the reviewers’ comments

Based on the editorial policy, the Biochemia Medica journal seeks to enable its authors to increase the quality and recognition of their work through a review process, but also to gain relevant experiences that will be useful in the preparation of their future publications. Each author hopes that after his work enters the editorial and review procedure, it will be returned to him or her with the decision to remake the work to be acceptable for publication. Over the years of the editorial experience, we have encountered several issues that unfortunately results in re-returning the manuscript for the review or rejecting the article. Due to these additional reviews, the publishing process is delayed, and all of this complicates the editorial process. Unfortunately, some authors skip and do not understand the importance of correct acquaintance with the Instructions for authors, which leads to extensive professional and technical reviews (1). However, even that would not be a problem if the authors in the next stage, when they receive instructions from reviewers and editors, meet most of the requirements and professionally and logically explain why they cannot accept a correction, if any. At the same time, when replying to the reviewers, authors very often do not comply with Journal’s instructions, which causes delays in the editorial process. To speed up the further editorial process, it is important to mark each correction made, and then answer to the reviewers, writing exactly what and where a certain correction was made in the text. Refusing of the reviewers’ and editor’s recommendations usually leads to the rejection of the paper and can be acceptable only if authors provide professional, scientific literature base explanation for the refusing. Therefore, this editorial is aimed to advise authors how to make a quality revision of the article in compliance with the Journal’s peer- review policy and how authors themselves can encourage a faster decision from the Journal’s editorial board (2).

article ; author ; editor ; revision

nije evidentirano